So if two people serve on a board, of a charitable group, it means they have some sort of relationship that a voter needs to be concerned about?

Don't forget that Obama went to Ayers' home to kick off his senate run.

Quote

I am certainly not friends with everyone I work closely with on a daily basis.

Have you gone to the home of anyone you worked with who was not your friend?

Quote

Why should it reflect badly on Obama that someone who supports him has a bad history but is now a community leader?

That "bad history" is more like "radical, terrorist history." Personally, I can't blame people for asking the questions about his ties to this guy. Whether or not those questions are satisfactorily answered is up to each person to decide for himself. For me, someone who is very likely to vote for Obama, this doesn't change that. It does add a pause in there, though, and it is worth criticism.

What exactly is the pause? Do you think maybe under Obama's leadership, the Weather Underground will be resurgent? Again, what gives you pause?

What exactly is the pause? Do you think maybe under Obama's leadership, the Weather Underground will be resurgent?

The pause is wondering exactly how far left Obama goes. We know he's moving to the center for the Presidential bid, as all candidates do, but I want to know how liberal he is. It's a tough question given his change in stance on several issues.

So if two people serve on a board, of a charitable group, it means they have some sort of relationship that a voter needs to be concerned about?

Don't forget that Obama went to Ayers' home to kick off his senate run.

Quote

I am certainly not friends with everyone I work closely with on a daily basis.

Have you gone to the home of anyone you worked with who was not your friend?

Quote

Why should it reflect badly on Obama that someone who supports him has a bad history but is now a community leader?

That "bad history" is more like "radical, terrorist history." Personally, I can't blame people for asking the questions about his ties to this guy. Whether or not those questions are satisfactorily answered is up to each person to decide for himself. For me, someone who is very likely to vote for Obama, this doesn't change that. It does add a pause in there, though, and it is worth criticism.

What exactly is the pause? Do you think maybe under Obama's leadership, the Weather Underground will be resurgent? Again, what gives you pause?

Ale

Im not voting for Obama, but to me it would speak to a total lack of judgment, not surprising he has them as a liberal, but it would just be another one to add to the list.

Bogdanski writes that there’s “no serious debate . . . about the fact that at least the amounts paid for the children’s travel — $24,728.83 in 2007, according to the Washington Post — are taxable. The campaign’s tax lawyer [Washington D.C. tax lawyer Roger M. Olsen] has got at least that much of the law, and perhaps more, wrong. . . . And the fact that the state payroll office got it wrong, too, doesn’t erase the Palins’ unpaid tax liability.”

For me personally, I don't give a rat's ass what they think on how old the earth is. Their opinion on that matter has no affect on me. What does is their opinion on these terrorist motherfuckers and our economy. I want every last one of them, and their supporters, dead dead dead. That and someone in office who doesn't think stealing more of my hard-earned money to make gov't bigger is the answer to America's problems. Those are the ONLY two things I care about. On every other subject I will take care of myself.

Interesting. Here are a few of the things I care about.

I care about the health and well being of the soldiers this country sends overseas to go after "terrorist motherfuckers." I believe the least we can do is equip our troops with the best, most advanced, and most reliable equipment available, and I have a serious problem with the lax attitude towards providing them modern body armor, armored vehicles, and anti-RPG interceptors. Vietnam-era equipment is simply not acceptable for soldiers fighting on behalf of the wealthiest and more powerful nation on the planet.

I don't know how to take care of providing adequate military equipment to hundreds of thousands of soldiers by myself, so I need to rely on the government to handle that for me.

I'm also concerned about the ways in which the healthcare system has failed returning soldiers, particularly the indefensible dilapidation of Walter Reed Medical Center after the Bush administration decided to privatize maintenance of the facilities. "Supporting Our Troops" requires more than slapping a bumper sticker on car -- it demands at least *adequate* treatment for the life-changing affects of losing a limb, suffering a traumatic brain injury, or post-traumatic stress disorder.

I don't know how to take care of providing proper medical care to thousands of soldiers by myself, so I need to rely on government to handle that for me.

Healthcare in general is an issue to me. I'm fortunate enough to be in excellent health and I work hard to keep myself in good shape, so I have access to affordable insurance. A friend of mine isn't so lucky: though he and his wife are both in excellent health and traditionally exercise four times a week, her job -- and their insurance -- evaporated about ten days before she confirmed that she's pregnant. Pregnancy moves women in an ultra-high risk category where health insurance costs skyrocket to insane levels.

I don't know how to provide appropriate pre-natal care for millions of uninsured women, much less how to treat breast cancer, set broken bones, or remove infected tonsils by myself, so I believe its time for society as a whole to start exploring fixes for a badly broken system.

I think education is a major issue. There's always a lot of *talk* about how anyone in America can rise to success through hard work and dedication, but the truth is that when the quality of our education system varies wildly between wealthy suburbs and impoverished inner cities, it's inappropriate to pretend that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed in life. I think we need more teachers with better pay, more schools with smaller class sizes, superior identification and assistance for special needs students, and a concerted decade-long campaign to reaffirm to a college education is within the reach of every family.

I don't know how to achieve those things by myself, so I'm going to base part of my vote on which politicians have the best education plan.

There are a lot of issues in this country that matter to me, including a number that don't necessarily affect me directly, but have a grave impact on people I care about. Since I think of society as something more enlightened than "taking care of myself," I weigh my vote according to which candidate I think will have the most positive impact on the people who need it the most.

Sadly, I think the truth is that he didn't select her. McCain's campaign has become much bigger than he is, and it's his campaign calling the shots. McCain has sold out his honor in his quest for the Presidency.

The irony is that if he'd maintained the political independence and principles that he brought to his race in 2000 -- not just during this campaign but over the last eight years -- I think he'd be doing much better. He may never have won the Republican nomination, but if he had, my natural desire to see the branches of government split between the two parties could easily have prompted me to vote for him.

So if two people serve on a board, of a charitable group, it means they have some sort of relationship that a voter needs to be concerned about?

Don't forget that Obama went to Ayers' home to kick off his senate run.

Quote

I am certainly not friends with everyone I work closely with on a daily basis.

Have you gone to the home of anyone you worked with who was not your friend?

Quote

Why should it reflect badly on Obama that someone who supports him has a bad history but is now a community leader?

That "bad history" is more like "radical, terrorist history." Personally, I can't blame people for asking the questions about his ties to this guy. Whether or not those questions are satisfactorily answered is up to each person to decide for himself. For me, someone who is very likely to vote for Obama, this doesn't change that. It does add a pause in there, though, and it is worth criticism.

Given this guilt-by-association tactic, I look forward to Cheeba's thoughts on this article.

Quote

Though Chryson belongs to a fringe political party, one that advocates the secession of Alaska from the Union, and that organizes with other like-minded secessionist movements from Canada to the Deep South, he is not without peculiar influence in state politics, especially the rise of Sarah Palin. An obscure figure outside of Alaska, Chryson has been a political fixture in the hometown of the Republican vice-presidential nominee for over a decade. During the 1990s, when Chryson directed the AIP, he and another radical right-winger, Steve Stoll, played a quiet but pivotal role in electing Palin as mayor of Wasilla and shaping her political agenda afterward. Both Stoll and Chryson not only contributed to Palin’s campaign financially, they played major behind-the-scenes roles in the Palin camp before, during and after her victory.

Palin backed Chryson as he successfully advanced a host of anti-tax, pro-gun initiatives, including one that altered the state Constitution’s language to better facilitate the formation of anti-government militias. She joined in their vendetta against several local officials they disliked, and listened to their advice about hiring. She attempted to name Stoll, a John Birch Society activist known in the Mat-Su Valley as “Black Helicopter Steve,” to an empty Wasilla City Council seat. “Every time I showed up her door was open,” said Chryson. “And that policy continued when she became governor.”

Palin has actual ties to secessionists, militia members, white supremacists, and neo-confederates, and has actively taken steps to empower them in local and state government in Alaska. I would consider that a more serious indicator of one's political views than sharing a board seat with a former Chicago Citizen of the Year. Oh, and Obama didn't "launch" his senate run at Ayer's house, Cheeba. Ayers hosted a coffee "meet and greet" when Obama ran for the Illinois State Senate. Regardless, it's far far less illustrative than Palin's actions in Wasilla and Juneau.

So if two people serve on a board, of a charitable group, it means they have some sort of relationship that a voter needs to be concerned about?

Don't forget that Obama went to Ayers' home to kick off his senate run.

Quote

I am certainly not friends with everyone I work closely with on a daily basis.

Have you gone to the home of anyone you worked with who was not your friend?

Quote

Why should it reflect badly on Obama that someone who supports him has a bad history but is now a community leader?

That "bad history" is more like "radical, terrorist history." Personally, I can't blame people for asking the questions about his ties to this guy. Whether or not those questions are satisfactorily answered is up to each person to decide for himself. For me, someone who is very likely to vote for Obama, this doesn't change that. It does add a pause in there, though, and it is worth criticism.

Given this guilt-by-association tactic, I look forward to Cheeba's thoughts on this article.

Personally, I can't blame people for asking the questions about her ties to this guy. Whether or not those questions are satisfactorily answered is up to each person to decide for himself. For me, someone who is very likely to vote for Obama, this doesn't change that. It does add a pause in there, though, and it is worth criticism.

Quote from: Brendan on October 12, 2008, 05:24:30 PM

I would consider that a more serious indicator of one's political views than sharing a board seat with a former Chicago Citizen of the Year.

I like how you find that his status as a former Chicago Citizen of the Year is relevant but you don't mind that he was a former bomber of American targets.

So, Brendan, I've shown that I can criticize both candidates. How about you? Does Obama's association with a terrorist warrant any criticism whatsoever? Or none at all?

Pushing what, exactly? You will note the post you link corrects errors and does not push an agenda. Or are you going to argue that Jeff Jones was right and that Obama only met Ayers by a chance meeting in the street?

Alternatively, you could just admit that Obama could punt a puppy and rather than criticize him for kicking the puppy you'd remark at how great his hang time was.

I like how you find that his status as a former Chicago Citizen of the Year is relevant but you don't mind that he was a former bomber of American targets.

Which is more recent, Cheeba? Ayers did some odious and stupid things when he was younger, but he has clearly been a more-than-productive member of polite society for decades, and his associations with republicans and democrats in Illiinois demonstrate that he's hardly anathema amongst the right-wingers out there.

Quote

So, Brendan, I've shown that I can criticize both candidates. How about you? Does Obama's association with a terrorist warrant any criticism whatsoever? Or none at all?

No, Obama's "assocation" with Bill Ayers does not warrant any criticism whatsoever. What is your implication with the question? That Obama supports the politics of the Weather Underground? Have you seen me bother complaining about McCain's association with G. Gordon Liddy or any of the other criminals that he's been palling around with? No, because I don't think McCain's friendship with Liddy translates into political action (unlike Palin's friendships with the militia crowd - which demonstrably has been a part of her politics).

I really don't care if you bomb American targets yesterday, 5 years ago, 20 years ago, or 40 years ago.

Quote

Ayers did some odious and stupid things when he was younger

Holy shit. You're actually defending a terrorist as "odious and stupid" in his youth because it's Obama he's friends with. Getting drunk and trying to cheat the casino in Vegas is odious and stupid. Placing a bomb at an American target and destroying it because it furthers your wacko political beliefs is terrorism.

Quote

No, Obama's "assocation" with Bill Ayers does not warrant any criticism whatsoever.

I really don't care if you bomb American targets yesterday, 5 years ago, 20 years ago, or 40 years ago.

Apparently the people whose opinions actually matter in regards to Ayers didn't much care either, given he's just strolled along into a nice career over the years. But that's not what you were getting at and I'm using your comments out of the context in which you presented them. I'm sorry. Let's just get down to it:

<SARCASM ALERT>

The guy is a Terrorist!

Probably an Arab too. Fucking bastard.

<END SARCASM ALERT>

Quote from: cheeba

Placing a bomb at an American target...

<SARCASM ALERT>

He's married to a Dixie Chick, right? Or is that someone else? All these terrorists running around, I get so confused. Where's John Wayne when ya need him?

Holy shit. You're actually defending a terrorist as "odious and stupid" in his youth because it's Obama he's friends with. Getting drunk and trying to cheat the casino in Vegas is odious and stupid. Placing a bomb at an American target and destroying it because it furthers your wacko political beliefs is terrorism.

It's interesting to chart your subtle evolution from "classic troll" to "concern troll," now that you're claiming that you'll be voting Obama. If you're to make a go of this new role, you really should make at least a plausibly sincere attempt to condemn Palin's associations; it'll help your credibility.

Because you're not an idiot, you know that Obama isn't "friends" with Bill Ayers and that he's condemned Ayer's actions. But your oddly black and white stance on this issue (which is almost certainly just you being a contrarian, as you clearly don't give a shit about any of it), doesn't make room for political pragmatism - Bill Ayers is now a Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois, and is the beneficiary of funding from Walter Annenberg, who could best be described extremely right-wing, having been a confidant of Nixon and Reagan. Oddly, there was no popular outcry when Annenberg handed Ayers $50,000,000 for Chicago public schools.

So, as usual, we have to ask "What's the point of Cheeba's particular outbursts here?" I have no idea what your point is - as if it's "Obama has suspect judgment for spending time working with this guy," then you're an obvious hypocrite, while if it's "Obama has sooper MARXIST SECRIT PLANZ," that'll just expose you as the kind of guy who believes the moon landing was faked. What conclusion are we supposed to draw from your various elliptical statements?

And, for the record, will you make the same "criticism" of all of these people?

The final Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 2001 were:

Patricia Albjerg Graham Barack Obama Edward Bottum, managing director of Chase Franklin Corp.; former president and vice chairman of Continental Illinois BankConnie Evans, founder and president of the Women's Self-Employment Project Susan Blankenbaker Noyes, former labor attorney at Sidley & Austin; daughter of Republican former Indiana state senator Virginia Murphy Blankenbaker; goddaughter of Patricia Albjerg GrahamScott C. Smith, president, CEO and publisher of the Chicago Tribune; former president, CEO and publisher of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel of Fort Lauderdale; former chairman of the South Florida Annenberg Challenge Nancy Searle, consultant to the Searle Funds at the Chicago Community Trust Victoria Chou, dean of the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago John W. McCarter, Jr., president and CEO of the Field Museum Jim Reynolds, Jr., co-founder, chairman and CEO of Loop Capital Services

The whole thing was actually a little sarcastic. I'll go back and edit my original post to clarify. In the meantime, let's step back and think about what's going on here...there's some dude who at one point decades ago blew shit up here in the USA. For some reason, people whose opinions (and authority) that could effect that dude don't care. In fact, the dude has gone on to have a successful life here in the same country where he once blew shit up.

How is that possible? Why has he not been in prison lo these decades? Or even executed? Why is he not in Gitmo? I mean, we throw people in Gitmo for so much as breathing funny...the dude in question has a PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF BLOWING SHIT UP in the USA, but he gets a pass? Grew out of it, did he? Promised not to do it anymore, perhaps?

Or maybe we don't know everything that went down?

No matter, what's at issue here is Obama's relationship with said dude. Just for the edification of those who might not be aware, but serving on a board of directors usually doesn't mean jack shit other than you meet a few times a year. Going over to a board member's house for some function isn't indicative of jack shit, either. It does NOT mean everyone on the board suddenly shares bodily fluids.

So trying to put Obama in bed with Ayers is bullshit. The evidence is flimsy AT BEST and the people trying to tie them together are every bit as ridiculous as the female McCain supporter who recently claimed to have read up on Obama and knows he's no good because, "he's an Arab."

It's interesting to chart your subtle evolution from "classic troll" to "concern troll," now that you're claiming that you'll be voting Obama. If you're to make a go of this new role, you really should make at least a plausibly sincere attempt to condemn Palin's associations; it'll help your credibility.

Did you not read my post earlier? I said her association with this organization is worthy of criticism. Calling me a troll does nothing for your argument. Perhaps if you were to argue more about facts than call someone names you would have better arguments.

Quote

Bill Ayers is now a Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois, and is the beneficiary of funding from Walter Annenberg, who could best be described extremely right-wing, having been a confidant of Nixon and Reagan. Oddly, there was no popular outcry when Annenberg handed Ayers $50,000,000 for Chicago public schools.

Oddly, none of this has anything to do with him having been a terrorist douchebag.

Quote

So, as usual, we have to ask "What's the point of Cheeba's particular outbursts here?"

Outbursts? Who's outbursting? Why you can't just talk about positions instead of trying to demonize the opposition, I will never understand.

Quote

I have no idea what your point is - as if it's "Obama has suspect judgment for spending time working with this guy," then you're an obvious hypocrite, while if it's "Obama has sooper MARXIST SECRIT PLANZ," that'll just expose you as the kind of guy who believes the moon landing was faked. What conclusion are we supposed to draw from your various elliptical statements?

Already showed he did more than just work with the guy. Already said people are right to ask questions about his involvement with the guy. If those questions are satisfactorily answered (they are to me) then there's nothing more needed. I think Obama's ties with Ayers showed a small lack of judgement and I would hope he uses better judgement in his future associations. However, people need to recognize that Ayers isn't some fine, upstanding citizen. He's a douchebag, and your defending a terrorist just because he has ties to Obama is some of the worst partisanship you've involved yourself in yet.

Quote

And, for the record, will you make the same "criticism" of all of these people?

Why do I have to repeat myself over and over? Any politician who associates with dipshits like radical secessionists or wannabe marxist rebels should not have done so. Bad politicians. Bad.

Quote

I wonder if they know that they've palled around with terrorists.

Considering Chicago politics, I'm sure they do. Wonder how many have been to Ayers' house?

You've already admitted that you're just trolling, Cheeba. You're here simply to provoke people - I can't recall a single time you actually advanced a conversation, posited an original idea, or even defended your own values. Your modus operandi is simply "stir shit up and hope that I make people angry."

Already showed he did more than just work with the guy. Already said people are right to ask questions about his involvement with the guy. If those questions are satisfactorily answered (they are to me) then there's nothing more needed. I think Obama's ties with Ayers showed a small lack of judgement and I would hope he uses better judgement in his future associations. However, people need to recognize that Ayers isn't some fine, upstanding citizen. He's a douchebag, and your defending a terrorist just because he has ties to Obama is some of the worst partisanship you've involved yourself in yet.

See? Here's an example of your trolling technique - you're explicitly claiming that I "defended a terrorist," which is, to be frank, total bullshit. Did I say that Ayers did the right thing? That his actions in the 60s were justifiable? Of course not.

Your myopic view of the world apparently excludes the possibility that people can redeem themselves, and, in parallel, refuses to acknowledge the essential validity of the cause on which Obama worked with Ayers and dozens of other luminaries in education and government, both liberals and conservatives: reforming inner-city Chicago schools. If someone offers you a chance to work with that sort of broad coalition to get $100,000,000 into your local schools, you're going to do what, decline because Bill Ayers wrote the grant application?

Quote from: Cheeba

Quote

I wonder if they know that they've palled around with terrorists.

Considering Chicago politics, I'm sure they do. Wonder how many have been to Ayers' house?

I'm sure plenty of them. From the article that you've claimed to have read, the visit to Ayers' house was hardly distinguishable from any of the other events supporting Obama's State Senate run:

Quote from: New York Times

It was later in 1995 that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn hosted the gathering, in their town house three blocks from Mr. Obama’s home, at which State Senator Alice J. Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Mr. Obama to a few Democratic friends as her chosen successor. That was one of several such neighborhood events as Mr. Obama prepared to run, said A. J. Wolf, the 84-year-old emeritus rabbi of KAM Isaiah Israel Synagogue, across the street from Mr. Obama’s current house.

“If you ask my wife, we had the first coffee for Barack,” Rabbi Wolf said.

So you missed the part where I said I believe in my arguments? Not easy to miss considering there's not much there. Is this thing a big deal to me? No, it's not. Does that mean you are not wrong? No, you are wrong here.

Quote

Your modus operandi is simply "stir shit up and hope that I make people angry."

What else do you want me to say other than, "bad politician. bad?" I've criticized her exactly as much as I've criticized Obama for his Ayers connection. As for memes, you seem to have discovered a new word. I'm devoting multiple posts to the Ayers issue because you and others are wrong on it.

Quote

See? Here's an example of your trolling technique - you're explicitly claiming that I "defended a terrorist," which is, to be frank, total bullshit.

No? You said he did some "odious" things. You've used the phrase "distinguished professor" to describe him, and yet you've not once called him a douchebag bombing terrorist.

Quote

Your myopic view of the world apparently excludes the possibility that people can redeem themselves

He has not asked for redemption. He's proud of inciting riots and setting off bombs on targets such as a statue meant to honor fallen policemen.

Quote

If someone offers you a chance to work with that sort of broad coalition to get $100,000,000 into your local schools, you're going to do what, decline because Bill Ayers wrote the grant application?

I'd do what I could to get Ayers off the project. If I were not successful I would decline as I would not work with this radical extremist douchebag.

Perhaps I gave you too much credit earlier. I'm voting for democrats because they come closest to matching my political aims. I have only rarely voted for Republicans, because for the most part, their politics diverge sharply from mine. Unlike you, I articulate my values - my political affiliation doesn't determine my view on subjects like gay marriage, gun control. My values do. As demonstrated by your posting history, your sole goal is to antagonize people who don't, like you, waffle between two candidates endlessly.

Quote from: Cheeba

Quote

See? Here's an example of your trolling technique - you're explicitly claiming that I "defended a terrorist," which is, to be frank, total bullshit.

No? You said he did some "odious" things. You've used the phrase "distinguished professor" to describe him, and yet you've not once called him a douchebag bombing terrorist.

Hey, Cheeba, Distinguished Professor is his job title. It's not some honorific I made up. Perhaps you didn't actually read those articles, huh?

Quote

I'd do what I could to get Ayers off the project. If I were not successful I would decline as I would not work with this radical extremist douchebag.

Let me guess - you'd meet with Ayers if only he satisfied some preconditions.

Perhaps I gave you too much credit earlier. I'm voting for democrats because they come closest to matching my political aims. I have only rarely voted for Republicans, because for the most part, their politics diverge sharply from mine. Unlike you, I articulate my values - my political affiliation doesn't determine my view on subjects like gay marriage, gun control. My values do. As demonstrated by your posting history, sole goal is to antagonize people who don't, like you, waffle between two candidates endlessly.

Whee, making it all about demonizing me again huh? You have values and I obviously do not! It makes such sense! I don't understand how my political affiliation determines my view on subjects like gay marriage or gun control. I mean hell you think I'm conservative, so why would I then hold a more liberal view on those issues?

Stop making this about me. Bill Ayers is a douchebag terrorist. He has not apologized for inciting riots and violence and bombing American targets. He is someone I would rather my candidates not associate with. I think most reasonable people would agree with that.

Quote

Hey, Cheeba, Distinguished Professor is his job title. It's not some honorific I made up. Perhaps you didn't actually read those articles, huh?

I worked in academia quite a while. I understand that's a job title. I also understand you took the time to point that (positive) out, while you've yet to point out that he's a douchebag terrorist scum.

Whee, making it all about demonizing me again huh? You have values and I obviously do not!

I suggest you read for comprehension. "Articulate" is not a synonym for "have". Just like I did not "defend" Ayers' Weather Underground actions, I did not say that you "do not" have values.

Quote

I worked in academia quite a while. I understand that's a job title. I also understand you took the time to point that (positive) out, while you've yet to point out that he's a douchebag terrorist scum.

He's not currently "douchebag terrorist scum," he's formerly "douchebag terrorist scum," although he may currently be just a "douchebag."

Given how little respect you usually accord the press, it seems surprising that you're willing to take the NYT report of his 2001 comments at face value. He, of course, maintains that he didn't say those things:

Quote

Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since 2000 stems from an interview he gave to The New York Times on the occasion of the memoir's publication. The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again" as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility." Ayers has not denied the quotes, but he protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."

In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade." Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.

Whether or not he expressed regret, he certainly did aid in the bombing of buildings in the 60s and 70s - which is absolutely a douchebag thing to do, even if they didn't intend to hurt anyone.

I'm going to stop responding to your trolling in this thread - the ostensible topic is Sarah Palin's inanities/incompetence, and there's plenty more news there, even beyond her pallin' around with secessionists, given her outright lies about the Troopergate results.